Context is an important element in any of our understanding of what is true or false. For example, if I say, "he kissed his mother," it wouldn’t sound abnormal. But if I revealed that he was Oedipus, son of Laius and Jocasta in Greek legend, it sounds abnormal. In fact that is where the phrase, "Oedipus Complex" originated.
At eighteen I was considered to be of average height. My West Point class was the first class to integrate by heights. Before then, cadets were assigned companies according to their height. But that system had developed some "Napoleonic" complexes in the shorter or "runt" companies. I was one of the first "tall" men to be put in the smallest "runt" company. Suddenly, I went from being average height to tall.
Chapel was mandatory in those days. We marched to church each Sunday. I had never been in a church with musical instruments. On that first Sunday I marched in the chapel and heard this magnificent organ praising God, but I was thinking I was entering the realm of Satan. After two Sundays, I couldn’t wait to attend chapel and worship God on such a high plane! That chapel went from being an instrument of Satan to a truly wonderful way of worshiping and praising God.
Over my life I have been asked many times, "Are you a Christian?" Most often, the person asking the question had a formulated response they expected me to repeat. If I answered as they wanted, they approved of me. If I answered wrongly, they were sure I was condemned to hell.
I hadn’t changed, but the person asking the question was different.
In my other pastorates, in the context of the communities where they were located, I was considered to be a moderate evangelical tongue speaking Presbyterian. In the community where I now reside, where fundamentalism prevails, I am often regarded as a flaming liberal, whose salvation is in doubt.
Context is important, especially in choosing a church. If your understanding of Christianity is it is all about salvation, then you would seek a church of that bent. They would have and emphasis altar calls in Sunday worship, the numbers being saved, how many visitors you bring, and your level of giving to the church. Salvation churches are about expansion, and rightly so, if salvation is what you believe Christianity is all about.
However, if your view of Christianity is people are saved by grace and not good works, and the work of the church is sanctification (becoming more holy or Godly), you would seek a different type of church. That church would see Sunday worship as a gathering of believers (saved people), who come to worship God, seek to equip people to be more Christ like in life so they can attract others to God, emphasize holiness and obedience to the Spirit of God, take serious Jesus’ life and teaching to be the way, the truth and the life, and believe no one can get to the Father (God) in heaven except by being like Jesus. These churches emphasis the age old Shema - love the Lord God with all your might. So if becoming more holy, to be a better follower of Christ and a more Godly person, then these are the churches for you.
Yes context is important, especially when you are seeking a place to worship and to grow spiritually. Names can be deceiving, so look at who they are, not who they say they are.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Equality of Sexes
Many traditions advocate women must be submissive to men. Sad traditions I have encountered all my life. Interestingly enough they claim God established this hierarchy at creation. So let me address it as a creation issue, "Are women spare ribs or prime cut?"
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
My foundation for examination is I believe, "Bereshith bara Elohim" ...In the beginning when God created... i.e. Life begins with God. Genesis means beginnings. Chapters 1 thru 11 of the book of Genesis are the primordial historical narrative of the earliest generations of the world and humankind. They are background for the call of Abram in the twelfth chapter. It is in this history that we find the creation of boys and girls.
English Bibles or traditional King James paraphrases are very difficult to use for particular endeavor, because they use the word "man" in place of several original Hebrew words. Let us first look at the Hebrew word influencing this subject. The word "adam" in Hebrew generally means humankind. It is not used as the proper name of the first male until verse 4:25. The evolution of the use of the word that goes from meaning humanity to a specific person is not uncommon in many Near Eastern accounts of creation.
The crux of creation is seen in Chapter 1 verse 27 - "So God created humankind (adam - heb.) in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NRSV) Boys and girls are both created in the image of God. This is the first and oldest text in Scripture concerning we humans. Man and woman were created equal in the sight of God. They are male and female in the image of God. Neither is more of an image than the other.
Then what is the second more familiar story the account of the Garden of Eden? Like much of the rest of Genesis it is a God's method of revealing truth that took place in the beginnings. Much is hard to understand but it is background for many traditions in the nation of Israel. Remember all of these Scriptures were passed down through generations for over a thousand years until they were put into writings just before the collapse of Judah as a nation.
Many people appropriate the story of the rib, which has no medical support. Yet many of us seize the issue of the breath of God. What is more important in the Garden story, the notion of male supremacy or a people of God, male and female, lead by the Spirit of God?
I have always had trouble with the two humans in the Garden being the first humans on planet Earth. Why? Who were the people in the land of Nod east of Eden? I don't know either, but they forced me to look at the story again. In the second look it was fascinating to see God take two particular humans into a special alliance and breath the breath of life into them. The etymologist knows it is the same breath that blew over the chaos and created something out of nothing. It is the same breath that descended as a dove when Jesus received the Holy Spirit.
Eureka! Perhaps these two creatures, male and female, were the first humans on planet Earth to receive the Holy Spirit. The first two humans born from above into the Kingdom of God. That is the real significance about the Garden story. Not some proof text to make me a Tarzan and my wife a Jane. Sorry Bubba, but your wife is also in the image of God and filled with the same Spirit, if she is a child of God.
Scriptures treats humankind as the focus of creation. Each and every human is intended to be prime cut. Yes, made in the image of God, male and female. Humankind is separated by who is in God's Garden and who is not in it. Or who has God's Spirit, the breath of God, and who doesn't have it. During the introduction of sin we find the spare rib concept for female humankind. Isn't it time to return to the original concept for God's people. Recognize we are all created in his image, male and female, and in need of his breath?
And! I am not a feminazi or a flaming liberal feminist! I am a male human in God, who wants equality of position to all humankind. In the place where I live (that's in Christ Jesus) there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female. Won't you move to my neighborhood and live in the fullness for which God created you, whether you are male or female?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Time for a Worldwide Reformation
Wherever we live on this beautiful crazy planet we are being bombarded with daily headlines that sadly reveal a rapidly growing worldwide clash of cultures and values. Examine any culture or value and you will find their ethical roots entwined deeply in their own particular historical and religious development over the ages. This ever developing clash of ideals lurks menacingly just below the surface of every faith and culture. When these lurking ideals finally clash they will create as much or more mayhem in the world as any of the other great steps in culture evolution in the past have brought.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
This erupting struggle of cultures and values caused me to ask, "What single idea or perspective is the real cause of this ecclesiastical struggle that is now spilling over into every domain?" Over the last two hundred years or so, societies have been expanding beyond their borders, while at the same time struggling with their isolationism. What has caused this dynamic tension amongst the cultures of the world? I believe it was and is the coming to age of the rapid communications and travel systems that are universally available.
Before this current and almost unbelievable expansion of information humanity seemed to live somewhat happily ever after within their own lands and within their own comfortable religious and cultural ideals and laws. And now, this new increasing access of information is allowing we citizens of the world to know so much more about one another. Maintaining an isolationism of peoples and faiths is growing more difficult each and everyday. In one way or another, we keep finding new needs for our far away neighbors, who we soon realize are so very different from ourselves.
This worldwide struggle according to many leaders is forcing us to choose what primary proclamation are we to declare in this expanding world community? This difficult choice seems to be between two major thoughts or perspectives, that would be difficult to proclaimed together. In fact they struggle to exist together within every faith because of the basic differences in how they are applied to people from/with different cultures and values.
What are these two opposing perspectives? Simply stated they are:
1. (Fill in a word or name) is the only way to acquire life after death (peace).
Or
2. For me/us (Fill in a word or name) is the best way to acquire life after death (peace).
A person deeply committed to statement number one, the one way only theory, will struggle constantly with how to effectively relate with anyone outside that system of belief. Why would this be true? By the nature of the statement, a person with that perspective must view anyone outside their perspective or realm as lost and without hope. They have and always will tend to see these outsiders as the enemy as well as people full of ignorance.
We don’t have to look to relationships between the major faiths of the world to see this in action. Throughout our Christian history this has been evident between many, if not most, Christian groups. Early in our history the Roman Church was one of the first major movements to claim exclusiveness. Subsequently, each and every cause seeking to reform the faith claimed that their particular perspective or way was the best, if not only true one. Nearly every spinoff from one of the main movements was created because someone claimed a new and special way.
Let one thing be clear, if a person or group stands on statement number one, they should by all means be isolationist and treat the rest of humanity as lost. It is a difficult road to walk, but it would seem to be the correct one for this group. Those of this perspective usually claim they simply are believing what God has told them.
In the second stated perspective there appears to be two underlying principles. The first is that how a person, or for that matter which person, is redeemed is freely and exclusively up to a Higher Power or Ideal. The twist? This perspective assumes all who are redeemed are done so by God. Therefore I believe this view also requires a respect of other views of God and reality. This twist evolves out of a humility that understands that there are things about the Creator we humans have yet to learn. It is powered by the notion that God desires every human being to exist forever with God, so they can come to the full knowledge of the truth of the reality of Creation and its Creator. Thus the second group normally endeavors to exist in a manner that will attract others to their faith. They do this by treating others as fellow creatures in the Creator’s world.. Who is or who isn’t in the fold of God is left entirely up to God.
Which statement is correct? Both could be correct and both could be wrong. But both require a deep respect of faith and discipline to that particular way of life. Jesus as well as most all other great teachers of other established faiths recognized this when they taught their followers that a person cannot serve two masters. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people attempt to live by both of the above statements. A person’s circumstance at various times seems to dictate as to which statement governed their actions.. In doing so their faith has been watered down to a point where it is now hard to tell the difference between the two points of view.
Having lived in communities and countries with different faiths than mine, and I found I was comfortable with most of their philosophies. For the most part, I believe they simply didn’t want to offend me. However, in every place I lived, I encountered minorities who strongly advocated just one of the statements. And they made it clear, that for them their statement of faith, whether it was the first or second one cited above, was the only way.
Unfortunately the middle groups who simply didn’t want to offend anyone have slowly lost center stage and control in every faith and culture. They seem to be standing on the sidelines while the two extremes fight for survival.
What should we make of this? Perhaps it is time for a new Reformation, not just in Christianity, but in the all the faiths of the world. Let us seek a common understanding of God and the purpose of this Creation. Let us seek it with love and understanding.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Free to Speak or Listen
I believe the greatest event in the history of this nation happened on June 12, 1776. The incidents that day are very much a part of everything we read, see, believe or do today. Debate continues to rage around it in to this century. Because of what a handful of people did so long ago our present debates are conducted in freedom.
A document primarily written by George Mason was approved at the Virginia Convention on that special date. It was known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It was more than a unusual inspiration for the Continental Congress that assembled thirty days later in historic Philadelphia to write that beautiful document we call The Declaration of Independence. Any review of that precious document, our Constitution or the Bill of Rights will reveal the vital influence Mason’s document had on the assembly.
We, the people of these United States, are privileged. We are able to stand up and speak our minds. Speaking your mind freely is something few people in this world can exercise or comprehend. It is this overriding feature that beckon the tired, the poor and the hungry to our shores. When that privilege is lost personal freedom goes with it.
Those assembled in Virginia understood the importance of this for future generations, especially if they wanted to preserve a high level of personal freedom. You can hear their wisdom in their own words. Article 1,"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights... the enjoyment of life and liberty... and pursuing and obtaining happiness... 2. That all power... is derived from the people."
The Assemblage also made other vital points so important in our nation’s foundation upon which free men and women have built this unique melting pot called the USA. For instance, they demanded freedom of press and freedom of worship. In fact it was their enthusiasm and convictions that most probably cause the meeting in Philadelphia to take serious a demand for personal freedom, particularly in regards to one speaking ones mind.
If a national Constitutional Convention were held today, would the delegates give heed to the words of George Mason again? "Are all men by nature" (in nature it means women as well as men; as it does also mean Spanish Americans, Black Americans, Asian immigrants, Native Americans, Neo Nazis, Homosexuals, Militants, Conservatives, Liberals, Far Right, Far Left, Children, Parents, Fetus, Etc.?)
"Equally free?" Does that mean that John Boehner and Ellen DeGeneses are equal? Is freedom shared equally with Rev. Billy Graham and Bill Maher? Is it fair to pursue as many welfare programs as you will give me? Is it fair for me to say no to you if I choose not to help you? Or must I do something or be a certain somebody to earn my equality in this free land?
Freedom is lost when we can no longer speak our minds. With freedom people are free to hear what I have to say and decide for themselves if what I say applies to them or not. If more people agree with one person over another our freedom says they may govern until they no longer are in the majority. But in our freedom that majority must do all they can to protect and preserve not only their own freedom, but the freedom of the minority. Difficult? Yes, but then that's why this nation is so special.
The moment we change this equation we begin to sound the death knell for freedom in this country. When we or anyone wants to shut another person up because of what they say, a little bit of freedom dies. Keep it up long enough and we can kill the whole thing.
The one element that cannot be removed from the freedom that founded this country is "the freedom to speak your own mind." It would do us all well to pause and remember that important fact. Do you hear me Hollywood, Elected Politicians, Radio and TV Pundits, Comedians, Religious Leaders, Directors of Movements, and the rest of those willing to speak their own minds? Can you extend that same courtesy and bravado into your own ability to listen when others speak their own mind?
Can you listen or will you simply wait impatiently until it's your turn to talk? From my perspective most of us exercise the freedom of speech without the freedom of listening. Listening doesn't mean we agree. It means we believe we all have the right to speak. Once again this formula precedes all democratic action. Lose it and you lose democracy.
A document primarily written by George Mason was approved at the Virginia Convention on that special date. It was known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. It was more than a unusual inspiration for the Continental Congress that assembled thirty days later in historic Philadelphia to write that beautiful document we call The Declaration of Independence. Any review of that precious document, our Constitution or the Bill of Rights will reveal the vital influence Mason’s document had on the assembly.
We, the people of these United States, are privileged. We are able to stand up and speak our minds. Speaking your mind freely is something few people in this world can exercise or comprehend. It is this overriding feature that beckon the tired, the poor and the hungry to our shores. When that privilege is lost personal freedom goes with it.
Those assembled in Virginia understood the importance of this for future generations, especially if they wanted to preserve a high level of personal freedom. You can hear their wisdom in their own words. Article 1,"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights... the enjoyment of life and liberty... and pursuing and obtaining happiness... 2. That all power... is derived from the people."
The Assemblage also made other vital points so important in our nation’s foundation upon which free men and women have built this unique melting pot called the USA. For instance, they demanded freedom of press and freedom of worship. In fact it was their enthusiasm and convictions that most probably cause the meeting in Philadelphia to take serious a demand for personal freedom, particularly in regards to one speaking ones mind.
If a national Constitutional Convention were held today, would the delegates give heed to the words of George Mason again? "Are all men by nature" (in nature it means women as well as men; as it does also mean Spanish Americans, Black Americans, Asian immigrants, Native Americans, Neo Nazis, Homosexuals, Militants, Conservatives, Liberals, Far Right, Far Left, Children, Parents, Fetus, Etc.?)
"Equally free?" Does that mean that John Boehner and Ellen DeGeneses are equal? Is freedom shared equally with Rev. Billy Graham and Bill Maher? Is it fair to pursue as many welfare programs as you will give me? Is it fair for me to say no to you if I choose not to help you? Or must I do something or be a certain somebody to earn my equality in this free land?
Freedom is lost when we can no longer speak our minds. With freedom people are free to hear what I have to say and decide for themselves if what I say applies to them or not. If more people agree with one person over another our freedom says they may govern until they no longer are in the majority. But in our freedom that majority must do all they can to protect and preserve not only their own freedom, but the freedom of the minority. Difficult? Yes, but then that's why this nation is so special.
The moment we change this equation we begin to sound the death knell for freedom in this country. When we or anyone wants to shut another person up because of what they say, a little bit of freedom dies. Keep it up long enough and we can kill the whole thing.
The one element that cannot be removed from the freedom that founded this country is "the freedom to speak your own mind." It would do us all well to pause and remember that important fact. Do you hear me Hollywood, Elected Politicians, Radio and TV Pundits, Comedians, Religious Leaders, Directors of Movements, and the rest of those willing to speak their own minds? Can you extend that same courtesy and bravado into your own ability to listen when others speak their own mind?
Can you listen or will you simply wait impatiently until it's your turn to talk? From my perspective most of us exercise the freedom of speech without the freedom of listening. Listening doesn't mean we agree. It means we believe we all have the right to speak. Once again this formula precedes all democratic action. Lose it and you lose democracy.
Freedom of Speech and Listening
I believe the greatest event in the history of this nation happened on June 12, 1776. The incidents that day are very much a part of everything we read, see, believe or do today. Debate continues to rage around it in to this century. Because of what a handful of people did so long ago our present debates are conducted in freedom.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Good Old USA
Yesterday was St. Patrick's Day. Tomorrow we celebrate the return of the swallows to Capistrano. Thursday is the first day of Spring! All is right with the world and a new day begins!
When I set down to write this column, my thoughts turned to what issue I would address today's column. Politics? Social Behavior? Social Problems? Money? Gambling? or what? But nothing negative came out. Instead I could only think of the good things about life. Maybe because about twenty-five percent of my time is spent wrestling with the negatives of life and seventy-five with positive. My glass is never half empty. It is always half full.
For every one person, who calls me for help on an electric bill or with an abuse problem, there are ten to thirty people willing to help them. I am only the broker of those services. While I know the poor will always be with me, it is good to know so will those who care.
Watching and listening to all of the negative and empty political rhetoric, I could get depressed. But, I remember living in a country that hung seven young political activist in the town square of the capital city. There was no political debate in that nation. There was also very little freedom and joy. Besides I even have the freedom to turn anyone off I want to at any time. Gee we live in a great country.
Being subjected to conflicting messages about our financial future and jobs, I could get depressed. Then I realize only in this country can people openly strike against their employers. And still live comfortable lives. I also know first hand we are one of the few places on earth that have three meals a day and understand the term "week end." Many peoples of the world are lucky to have one meal a day and there is no such term as "week end" in their language.
Ah the birds sing a new song each spring. They know that it is a great world to live in and that we have the finest nest ever built. "Born in the USA" what a nice sound it has to my ears. It is the sound of spring and Mother Nature reminds us how good it is to be alive in this particular place and time. Let everyday be St. Patrick's Day! Let the swallows sing every morning at Capistrano. Let a new day begin! Isn't freedom wonderful? Sorry I could bring you something controversial. I try harder next week.
When I set down to write this column, my thoughts turned to what issue I would address today's column. Politics? Social Behavior? Social Problems? Money? Gambling? or what? But nothing negative came out. Instead I could only think of the good things about life. Maybe because about twenty-five percent of my time is spent wrestling with the negatives of life and seventy-five with positive. My glass is never half empty. It is always half full.
For every one person, who calls me for help on an electric bill or with an abuse problem, there are ten to thirty people willing to help them. I am only the broker of those services. While I know the poor will always be with me, it is good to know so will those who care.
Watching and listening to all of the negative and empty political rhetoric, I could get depressed. But, I remember living in a country that hung seven young political activist in the town square of the capital city. There was no political debate in that nation. There was also very little freedom and joy. Besides I even have the freedom to turn anyone off I want to at any time. Gee we live in a great country.
Being subjected to conflicting messages about our financial future and jobs, I could get depressed. Then I realize only in this country can people openly strike against their employers. And still live comfortable lives. I also know first hand we are one of the few places on earth that have three meals a day and understand the term "week end." Many peoples of the world are lucky to have one meal a day and there is no such term as "week end" in their language.
Ah the birds sing a new song each spring. They know that it is a great world to live in and that we have the finest nest ever built. "Born in the USA" what a nice sound it has to my ears. It is the sound of spring and Mother Nature reminds us how good it is to be alive in this particular place and time. Let everyday be St. Patrick's Day! Let the swallows sing every morning at Capistrano. Let a new day begin! Isn't freedom wonderful? Sorry I could bring you something controversial. I try harder next week.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Anthromorphic God
At seminary there was a sign, "God created man in his own image. Ever since man has tried to created God in his image." The older I am the more I understand that sign. Humans have a hard time understanding God in a spiritual sense, so we describe or create a God with human characteristics.
This might work if humans were all alike in gender, race, size, ability, and whatever else we consider important. But for some reason we weren’t made all the same, and in that lies the struggle of humanity. Do we insist that people all agree with our particular tradition’s image of God? Or do we share our understandings of God and treat with respect the understandings of others created in the image of that same unknown and unseen force we call God?
A Hindu friend, who lives in northern India, caused me to re-think a lot of my notions about God. I had asked him why India had so many Gods. He laughed and said, "Dennis, we believe in only one Devine Creator, but over the centuries each village built its own statue to represent that Devine Creator. And each village had its own unique dialect and name for that same Devine Creator."
I replied, "I am not sure I can understand that."
He laughed and replied, "You in this country do something very similar. You all believe in one Devine Creator, but your landscape is dotted with various monument like buildings with their very own understanding of God."
"How is that," I asked.
He said, "Look you have a Baptist God, a Presbyterian God, a Roman Catholic God, a Methodist God, and it seems like every other week a new building with a new name and people springs up. So you have many versions of God, just like we in India."
He had a point. So how do we accept each other’s view or expression of God, the Devine Creator?
First, understand God as a concept for the originator of all space and time we call Creation and accept all human beings worldwide as truly created in the image of that one Devine Creator. Second, listen and respect other human’s interpretations of things. Such interpretations usually develop into some form of religious theology and standards.
How do we relate to those theology and standards? Accept valid those issues that don’t violate a common understanding of God’s demand upon all human beings. That demand is the notion that all humans must love (respect) God above all things and love (respect) others as we love (respect) ourselves.
What about those that seek to destroy any understandings about God, that do not agree with theirs? Those who attack with an intent to destroy equal understandings or views are not in the image of the Devine Creator. They are playing God themselves and attempting to create God in their image. They are the bullies, terriorist, bigots, self-righteous, arrogant people, who have always caused war and pain for humanity. They are the enemies of the Devine Creator.
All my life I have struggled with what to do about them. Ignore them? Nah, they are hard to ignore. Turn the other cheek? When we do that they crucify us. Reason with them? You have to be kidding. Fight them? Maybe, but how? They don’t play by any rules the people of God play by.
This list could go on and on. What is the answer? History and most holy scriptures of all faiths seem to indicate that from time to time, God will lift up a person or a group to be our warriors and destroy the vile cowards, who operate under the cloak of religion. Maybe it is time to ask God for another Shepherd boy named David to kill the giant enemies of God in this time and place in history.
Or we can hope it just goes away. Cause after all, that would mean we would have to accept an awful lot of people, who have different names and understanding of the Devine Creator. A vicious circle of life! What is the answer? Can we not find it together? Let us all stop creating God in our image and seek the face of the Devine Creator together in a rapidly shrinking world. Or will we kill each other off before that happens?
This might work if humans were all alike in gender, race, size, ability, and whatever else we consider important. But for some reason we weren’t made all the same, and in that lies the struggle of humanity. Do we insist that people all agree with our particular tradition’s image of God? Or do we share our understandings of God and treat with respect the understandings of others created in the image of that same unknown and unseen force we call God?
A Hindu friend, who lives in northern India, caused me to re-think a lot of my notions about God. I had asked him why India had so many Gods. He laughed and said, "Dennis, we believe in only one Devine Creator, but over the centuries each village built its own statue to represent that Devine Creator. And each village had its own unique dialect and name for that same Devine Creator."
I replied, "I am not sure I can understand that."
He laughed and replied, "You in this country do something very similar. You all believe in one Devine Creator, but your landscape is dotted with various monument like buildings with their very own understanding of God."
"How is that," I asked.
He said, "Look you have a Baptist God, a Presbyterian God, a Roman Catholic God, a Methodist God, and it seems like every other week a new building with a new name and people springs up. So you have many versions of God, just like we in India."
He had a point. So how do we accept each other’s view or expression of God, the Devine Creator?
First, understand God as a concept for the originator of all space and time we call Creation and accept all human beings worldwide as truly created in the image of that one Devine Creator. Second, listen and respect other human’s interpretations of things. Such interpretations usually develop into some form of religious theology and standards.
How do we relate to those theology and standards? Accept valid those issues that don’t violate a common understanding of God’s demand upon all human beings. That demand is the notion that all humans must love (respect) God above all things and love (respect) others as we love (respect) ourselves.
What about those that seek to destroy any understandings about God, that do not agree with theirs? Those who attack with an intent to destroy equal understandings or views are not in the image of the Devine Creator. They are playing God themselves and attempting to create God in their image. They are the bullies, terriorist, bigots, self-righteous, arrogant people, who have always caused war and pain for humanity. They are the enemies of the Devine Creator.
All my life I have struggled with what to do about them. Ignore them? Nah, they are hard to ignore. Turn the other cheek? When we do that they crucify us. Reason with them? You have to be kidding. Fight them? Maybe, but how? They don’t play by any rules the people of God play by.
This list could go on and on. What is the answer? History and most holy scriptures of all faiths seem to indicate that from time to time, God will lift up a person or a group to be our warriors and destroy the vile cowards, who operate under the cloak of religion. Maybe it is time to ask God for another Shepherd boy named David to kill the giant enemies of God in this time and place in history.
Or we can hope it just goes away. Cause after all, that would mean we would have to accept an awful lot of people, who have different names and understanding of the Devine Creator. A vicious circle of life! What is the answer? Can we not find it together? Let us all stop creating God in our image and seek the face of the Devine Creator together in a rapidly shrinking world. Or will we kill each other off before that happens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)